Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 676, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 679.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, November 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of Proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, as provided for under the previous order; that upon disposition of S. 510, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 4 p.m. to allow for the party caucus meetings; and finally, I ask that Senator Dodd be recognized to speak at 4 p.m.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of up to three rollcall votes beginning at approximately 9:15 tomorrow. The votes will be in relation to two Coburn motions to suspend the rules and on the passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understand that S. 3985 introduced earlier by Senator Sanders is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15 minutes to make my presentation. I thank Senator Inouye for enabling that. I oppose the Coburn motion to place a 3-year moratorium on earmarks. I thank Chairman Inouye for his leadership on this issue. It seems, as has been said over the years, that we have heard this song before. If Members really believe these programs are responsible for our terrible fiscal condition, they are wrong. It is make believe. The deficit we are wrestling with had its biggest boost during the Bush years when 8 years of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us brought a $2 trillion increase in the national debt. But we never hear about that. Earmarks are a vital investment for our communities. They help build levees, dams that protect coastal towns from flooding. Look at the water shortages across the country. A lot of these are helped by earmarks, by congressionally designated programs. We earmark funds for waste and drinking water problems, very serious problems. These are not frivolous ideas. They help police departments, first responders, hospital upgrades, and the purchase of new equipment. Look at transportation. It is falling apart. These earmarks, congressionally designated, build roads, bridges, and rail stations that strengthen our transportation infrastructure. One wouldn't know any of this by listening to the critics of designated funding from those sent here by our States to represent them with a special knowledge of their needs and requirements. These critics have dismissed earmarks as an example of wasteful, runaway government spending. We hear them called dirty programs, et cetera, mocking them. To these critics I say: I would like you to see what happened in Jersey City, NJ, where an earmark enabled the Metropolitan Family Health Clinic to now screen women for breast cancer for the first time, thanks to new equipment funded by an earmark. Or tell it to the millions of people whose livelihoods are connected to the ports of New York and New Jersey. Earmarks permit us to deepen the harbor at our port so ever larger vessels can bring the cargo to our ports and help stimulate the economy. That means 230,000 jobs and is a critical component of our region's economy. Local communities rely upon this kind of funding in times like these when so many State and community budgets are stretched thin and revenues shrink and even philanthropy is drying up all over the country. The fact is, hundreds of communities and nonprofit organizations across the country are expecting to receive congressionally earmarked funds for the unfinished fiscal 2011 appropriations bills. The Coburn amendment would pull the rug from underneath these communities, snatching away the Federal support they are counting on us to deliver. One has only to see the reception of an organization such as Campus Kitchen, a nonprofit project that recently launched in Atlantic City to feed needy families who flock there over Thanksgiving and at the same time help unemployed workers upgrade their job skills. Campus Kitchen is counting on $100,000 worth of congressionally directed funds. If this amendment passes, they will close their doors, and those who need the food and can only get it there will go hungry. What about the resources needed to protect our residents from terrorism. Hudson County sits just across the river from New York City, right in the heart of one of the most vulnerable areas in the country for terrorism. This year's Homeland Security appropriations bill includes funding for an emergency operations center so that the county can prepare and respond to emergencies and potential terrorist threats. One of the most serious problems we saw on 9/11, when 3,000 people perished that day, was because the police departments could not talk to one another, because first responders could not talk to one another, because firemen could not talk to their leadership and died that day. Thousands more are now sick from the dust and the atmosphere that was created as a result of the demolition resulting from the attack. This amendment would eliminate funding for this vital program. Yet those who criticize these projects are the very same ones who were all too happy to provide earmarks when they were in charge. I don't want to fool the public. Let them understand what is going on here. We are seeing raw politics at work. Earmarks make up just one- half of 1 percent of the Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2011 that was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. I was proud to author that bill as the chairman of the subcommittee, building on the work begun by our recently departed Senator Byrd. Compare this to the fiscal year 2006 bill which was written when our colleagues on the other side controlled the Congress. Under Republican control, earmarks in the Homeland Security appropriations bill were 60 percent higher than the fiscal year 2011 bill. In addition to funding emergency operations centers, the Homeland Security bill funds important research that helps our Nation discover new ways to prevent potential terrorist attacks and respond when they happen. Earmarks also help to strengthen the Coast Guard whose mission and value continually increase. It is not wasteful spending. Over the years many people have recognized the value of these programs. Democrats and Republicans alike proudly included earmarks for worthwhile projects in their States. In fact, earmarks flourished when the Republicans controlled the Senate. In fiscal year 2006, total funding for earmarks was twice the amount included in last year's bills when Democrats were in charge, and it was Democrats who implemented the ethics reforms and earmark transparency that has significantly improved congressionally designated programs. Since becoming Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Inouye has been a great leader in this office. He has instituted important changes that have made the earmarking process stronger and more transparent. It was an essential factor in our review. At Chairman Inouye's request, Senators are now required to post their earmark requests on the Internet in advance so the public can see them. He has brought this entire process further into the light of day, allowing constituents, the news media, and outside watchdog organizations to track how taxpayer dollars are spent. But a funny thing has occurred. Some of our Republican friends who have used earmarks to serve their constituents for years suddenly have had a change of heart and jumped on the anti-earmark bandwagon. In fact, the Republican leader, who in the past brought home hundreds of millions of dollars to his State of Kentucky, has done an about-face in calling for an earmark ban. The hypocrisy of these new earmark critics is outrageous. Here is what the critics never mention: Earmarks do not add one cent to the deficit, not a single cent. We heard that from our leader here, from Senator Inouye. When Congress includes an earmark in an agency's budget, it is not increasing that budget. It is specifying how a portion of the funding should be spent based on their understanding of their State's needs. After hearing many requests all of us do, they can evaluate which ones they see as the most important. It is a voice of reason and understanding. The fact is the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of the purse when they wrote the Constitution. Directing funding to specific projects is one way Congress exercises this power. If we eliminate earmarks, we will transfer our funding powers to the President, and that is not the way the Constitution is structured. It undermines the authority the Founders placed on us two centuries ago. The people who work in the Federal agencies here in Washington include some of America's best and brightest, but they simply do not necessarily know the needs of our States as well as we do. This debate over earmarks is nothing more than a distraction from the pressing issues on which we should be focused. I call on my colleagues to consider the facts and not the rhetoric. Do not be misled. Do not allow the truth to be mangled, misconstrued, and misrepresented. Earmarks help create jobs and help millions of Americans through their lives, especially now in this stressful period where we have people who are afraid they are going to lose their jobs after many years of loyal support or, still, lose their homes because they cannot afford the mortgages they were sold. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment because it will not solve a single problem we face. I hope we will use our time for more constructive debate. I would suggest that everybody who talks in opposition to earmarks, congressionally designated programs, say now on this floor--take an oath that you will in your own State announce the fact you are opposing the earmarks that were proposed for it. Tell the people back home that you are going to deny their right to accept these things because it is dirty, because it is unclean, and they say that it goes only to those who contribute large sums of money. If you want to look at those who contribute large sums of money, look at that side of the aisle. They dwarf what we do in our debate about where funding goes and where funding stops. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of SSG Ingles DosReis, who was tragically killed on August 28, 2009, while serving at Aviano Air Base in Italy. Staff Sergeant DosReis enlisted in the Air Force in February 2005, immediately following his graduation from high school. He was a member of the 51st Security Forces Squadron stationed out of Osan Air Base in South Korea from August 2005 until August 2006. He was subsequently transferred to the 31st Security Forces Squadron at Aviano Air Base, where he started as an installation entry controller. He deployed to Iraq in August 2007 and received the Army Achievement Medal for his service. Staff Sergeant DosReis served in Iraq until February 2008 and upon his return he became a certified desk sergeant at Aviano Air Base. He was posthumously promoted by the Air Force to the permanent grade of staff sergeant in August 2009. Staff Sergeant DosReis' family fondly remembers him as an intelligent and kindhearted man and a loving husband to his wife Katherine and father to his son Christian. A great athlete, Staff Sergeant DosReis spent much of his childhood playing basketball and had a passion for sports. He was also a natural student, earning honors in high school and later going on to take classes at the Community College of the Air Force with a major in political science. Over a year has passed since SSG Ingles DosReis was tragically taken from those who love him. Today, I join Staff Sergeant DosReis' family and friends in commemorating his life by entering his name in the Record. As a member of the Air Force, he showed his loyalty and commitment to freedom and peace and today we honor his service and sacrifice for our country. Lance Corporal Irvin M. Ceniceros

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a long time. This is my 25th year of service. This is one of the most exciting moments I have seen here. Today we have an opportunity to fulfill a great responsibility and an honor, to be able to stand in this Chamber to declare our support for the President's selection of an outstanding nominee: Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Everyone is aware that she brings an intellect, experience, and knowledge of the law that places her among the few in this country so perfectly qualified to serve on this most important body of jurisprudence in the entire world. Upon the entrance to the Federal courthouse in Newark, NJ, there is an inscription that reads: ``The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice.'' I was the author of that statement and I labored over it, short as it is, to reflect my view that reflects a fundamental principle of our democracy and the values on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. These values pervade throughout our government and legal system, and especially in the decisions of our Nation's highest Court. I met with Solicitor General Kagan to hear her views and her personal history, and I watched the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have no doubt that, if approved, Solicitor General Kagan will be an outstanding defender of our Constitution in the dispensation of justice entrusted to a Supreme Court member. That is why I hope that with this historic opportunity, the Senate will stand up for what is right, to confirm Ms. Kagan's appointment to become a member of the highest Court in our country because of her outstanding qualifications. When I met with her, I told her the people of New Jersey were excited about her nomination not only because of her outstanding educational achievements--by the way, graduating from Princeton, NJ, summa cum laude, and contributing so much in her life through her commitment to public service. The excitement is generated because Ms. Kagan is a trailblazer who has paved the way to the top of the legal profession that has helped open doors to women as well as men. She was the first woman chosen to be dean of Harvard Law School. She is the first woman ever to have served as Solicitor General of the United States, a post many call the ``tenth Justice'' of the Supreme Court. We must remember what that job is, what that task is, and that is to appear on behalf of the United States as an advocate, having tested abilities to bring the case to the Court, defending our country, and experience second to none in that courtroom. Let us not forget that in the last year she has amassed an impressive record as Solicitor General. She has filed more than 3,500 pages of merit briefs before the Court, and she has argued cases on a broad range of issues from protecting children from pedophiles to protecting Americans from terrorists. If she is confirmed, of nine members of the Court, the proportion of women will be at its highest level in history, with women holding three seats. She is the granddaughter of immigrants, and that experience shaped the world in which she grew up. Similarly, I came from parents brought to America by my grandparents, who had the common experience of so many of the struggle to learn a new language, adopt new skills to get by, mustering the determination to help their children rise above their circumstances in this new world. Though my parents worked very hard, they were never able to accumulate valuables. Instead, the heritage they left my sister and me was a set of values and a love for America with its freedom and opportunities and appreciation for what this country gives us all. They often reminded us that there were those far worse off than we and we had an obligation to contribute if we could to give something back to our community. These same values are inherent in Ms. Kagan's views as she expressed them to me. Her father was a housing lawyer. Her mother was a public schoolteacher for 20 years, and she carries the heritage of their public service dedication. Solicitor General Kagan's career has confirmed her own commitment to public service, protecting rights and individual freedoms. She served as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall whom she, as many other Americans, greatly admired. Frankly, it is sad to see that some on this floor during her confirmation hearings attempted to discredit Solicitor General Kagan's reputation because of her association with Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall was an icon who expanded respect and tolerance in America as few others have in our history. He argued Brown v. The Board of Education. He was the first African American to serve as Solicitor General of the United States, at which he excelled, amassing a remarkable record of Court victories. He was the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and distinguished himself as one of America's greatest jurists. Some on the other side, in order to keep this appointment from being confirmed, have gone so far in their desperation to denigrate Ms. Kagan that they have labeled Justice Marshall as some radical on the bench and attempted to tear apart the years of brilliant contributions of this great man. I want to be clear. The fight to end racial discrimination may have been radical to some, but it was the right fight and the right cause, and there will never be anything shameful about a person whose great mind and ferocious eloquence made him a giant in the civil rights movement. Shame on those who would denigrate those achievements. Ms. Kagan's lifelong dedication has been to break down barriers and work for what is right, not simply popular. At Harvard Law School, one of her accomplishments as dean was to welcome different views among faculty members. She believed--and exercised that belief--that her students would not get the legal education they deserved if it was limited by one ideological perspective. She made it a point to add faculty members who came from different points along the political spectrum. No wonder Solicitor General Kagan's nomination has not only been endorsed by liberals but also by conservatives, including Ken Starr, Ted Olson, and Miguel Estrada. Considering a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most important responsibilities we have. The Supreme Court makes decisions that determine the very underpinnings of our country's character. It has a direct say on the rights--or lack thereof--our children and grandchildren will have. The Court can decide whether big corporations and the rich and famous should have a stronger claim to justice than the average person. The Court sets the table for government power-- whether it goes unchecked or is responsible to the people. The rulings of the Court affect everyday New Jerseyans and everyday Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Kagan understands that. After careful consideration, I am going to proudly vote yes to confirm a person who I believe will be one of the great Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Mr. President, I hope there isn't this continuing attempt and process we have seen here where it is the objective of individuals in this room--typically on the other side of the aisle--to stop things from happening, to be obstructionists. There is no point in exercising that kind of foolishness. This is a time to step up and say we want the best we can get for our Supreme Court. President Obama has chosen carefully and wisely, and we want to see Ms. Kagan seated on the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will vote affirmatively to make sure that happens. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, another 8 months have passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the Congressional Record. Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on November 2, 2009, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 313 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten, and today I submit their names into the Record: SSG Jesse W. Ainsworth, of Dayton, TX; SGT Donald R. Edgerton, of Murphy, NC; SPC Joseph W. Dimock II, of Wildwood, IL; SPC Robert W. Crow, of Kansas City, MO; PFC Anthony W. Simmons, of Tallahassee, FL; PFC Michael S. Pridham, of Louisville, KY; SPC Roger Lee, of Monterey, CA; SSG Marc A. Arizmendez, of Anaheim, CA; SPC Jerod H. Osborne, of Royse City, TX; SPC Keenan A. Cooper, of Wahpeton, ND; PFC Jacob A. Dennis, of Powder Springs, GA; SGT Andrew J. Creighton, of Laurel, DE; SSG Christopher F. Cabacoy, of Virginia Beach, VA; PFC Edwin C. Wood, of Omaha, NE; SGT Jordan E. Tuttle, of West Monroe, LA; PFC David Jefferson, of Philadelphia, PA; SPC Clayton D. McGarrah, of Harrison, AR; SPC Louis R. Fastuca, of West Chester, PA; Capt. David A. Wisniewski, of Moville, IA; PFC Ryan J. Grady, of Bristow,

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is not my regular seat in the Senate, but I came here to stand near the place that Senator Robert C. Byrd occupied. His absence is noted by the flowers and the black cloth that covers his desk. There is so much to say about Robert C. Byrd that to have a serious discussion about who and what he was would take far more time than we have available. He was an unusual man, brilliant, genius, credited with encyclopedic knowledge. When I came to the Senate in 1983, I was not a young man. I am now an older man. When I came, I wanted to meet Senator Byrd. I came from the business world. I was chairman and CEO of a significant corporation that carried substantial esteem and respect for the record compiled by the three of us boys from poor working-class families in Paterson, NJ, an industrial city that had its origins as an industrial place at the time of Alexander Hamilton. I was privileged to meet a lot of people who could be described as lofty and holding positions of importance. When I went in to Senator Byrd's office to introduce myself--I had met him a couple of times before I was elected to the Senate seat from New Jersey--it was with great awe and respect that I sat in front of this individual who had given so much to our country, who taxed our wits and made us think more deeply about our responsibilities than sometimes we have. He was a tower of knowledge and strength. I introduced myself to him, and we had a nice chat for a while. He asked me about my background. I talked about my life and my experiences, which are not anything like the depth of Senator Robert Byrd's background. I came from a poor family. I served in the Army. I received my education at Columbia University because I was able to use the scholarship that was given to soldiers who had served in the military. As I listened to Robert Byrd, what he had accomplished in his lifetime dwarfed anything I had ever seen. He was a man born into poverty, orphaned at an early stage in life, and turned over to relatives to be brought up. He taught himself how to play the violin and attended law school part time at night for years, finally getting his law degree from the university. He was an incredible figure in our time. We feel his absence already. In his latest years, he was not fortunate enough to have the kind of health he had as a younger man, but he always had the respect of everybody who knew him. When we look at his history, if one has time to go to the computer and get a biography that is held in Wikipedia and see the more than 30 pages' worth of his accomplishments and history, it was a privilege and an honor for those of us who knew him when we look at the positions he held. He had elegance. He had grace. He had resilience. He was tough. He had a meticulous grasp of history. I came out of the computer business. I used to tease Robert C. Byrd. I called him ``my human computer.'' He had so much knowledge that, frankly, I think it competed very ably with the computers in the early eighties when I came to the Senate. When I visited him in his office, he asked me if I knew the history of the monarchs of the British Empire. I said I did not know much about them. I knew the recent one, the sitting monarch at the time. He proceeded for more than one hour to give me the history of the monarchs of the British Empire, starting with William the Conqueror, 1066, and recalling everybody who was King or Queen of England, of the British Empire. He talked about how long they served, the precise dates they served, whether they died by the hand of an assassin, whether they died from a disease, whether they died from an accident. He knew all of that detail. I was sitting in total bewilderment as to how one could capture and remember so much of that information. When I asked to be excused because I had some other business, he was ready to give me the history of the Roman Senate. He did this not like most of us, with notes. He had it in his brain while he recalled everything he learned and did, the number of votes, where he cast them, and on what issue. It was remarkable. He served at a period of time when we had some of the most remarkable people this body has seen. Not to suggest we do not have talent equal to the stature of some of those who served then. It is worthy of mention that he was the majority leader in the Senate from January 1977 to January 1981 and again from 1989 to 1989, a relatively short period. He preceded and served with people such as Howard Baker on the Republican side, Bob Dole, Mike Mansfield, and George Mitchell. He was an equal with those powerhouses and stood as one of them. He stood out. He revered this Senate and the process with which we then operated. We are far less committed to process. Bob Byrd insisted we have the time, respect, courtesy, and proper addressing of individuals, giving it a certain loftiness that we otherwise would not have had. Nobody knew more about this body than Robert C. Byrd. He was this Chamber's protector. He protected the Senate's rules, the Senate's integrity, and he protected the Senate's civility. He taught each and every one of us how the Senate works--the ins, the outs. It is hard to imagine serving a single day without him. He had such respect for the management of this country of ours. We should be inspired by Robert C. Byrd's legacy to become more cooperative and more civil in the days ahead. We ought to reflect on those values tomorrow as we view Senator Byrd's casket lying in repose in this Chamber that he loved so dearly. He loved it so much that he reminded all of us from time to time--he would pick up on a phrase. Someone talked about serving under President this or that President. He said: Sir, never, never under. We serve with the President of the United States. We never serve under them. We are a body of equal importance. And he knew that from every possible position of responsibility he held. What we should do as a Senate is accept the best that Robert C. Byrd brought to us, to share the image he brought to all of us and to the stature of this body. Robert C. Byrd's journey in life was simply remarkable. He was born into deep poverty, growing up without the comforts that many of us take for granted, such as running water, and setting an example for all Americans of what you might be if you make the effort and you have the dedication to a higher purpose. Although he was high school valedictorian at the age of 16, he had to skip college because he did not have the means to pay for it. He overcame that obstacle by becoming a self-taught man and a student of history. How did he learn to play the violin all by himself, and learn what he did about education and law? He served half a century--51 years--in the Senate, holding every critical position, including, as I mentioned, majority leader and minority leader and President pro tempore. In that position he was third in line for the Presidency of the United States. Still, he never forgot where he came from and his duty to help everyday people. He pleaded their case, particularly his beloved West Virginia, as well as across the country. I had the privilege to serve with Senator Byrd when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Some like to make light of his position to fund projects in West Virginia, but there was nothing cynical about his life's cause to stamp out poverty in his home State and in this country. Senator Byrd called bringing Federal dollars back to his State one of his greatest achievements. He understood that a new school meant a child would have a better chance for a future. A new sewage system meant that families might have clean water--unaccustomed as they were in lots of places in his home State. A new highway meant that farmers and companies could bring their product and their produce to market in hours. I will use the expression that he ``elegantized'' the beauty of the deeds of working people and brought meaning to the purpose of their lives and their work. He was a forward-looking man. He, working with all of us, recognized the importance of an appropriate infrastructure--the importance of Amtrak, of the railroad that serves so many millions of Americans every year. He was a voice for stronger rail service, knowing that could get people more reliable travel so they would not be stuck in massive traffic jams when they had to get someplace. It was an important part of an agenda that he had that was so broad. Years ago, when Amtrak--a favorite part of my view of what has to happen with our infrastructure--was under siege, we worked side by side to protect America's premier rail network from being defunded. In 2007, when the Amtrak law I authored was on this floor, we faced a difficult vote to defeat a killer amendment. I remember standing here as they were counting the yeas and nays, and Senator Byrd had occasion to let his simple yes or no ring out across this place. He put a stamp on that, and that meant that he didn't like it or he did like it. He wanted everybody in this place to remember that he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He remembered when people voted with him and when they didn't. He couldn't stand the hypocrisy of people who would say: Oh, these earmarks are terrible, and then they would put in their list. But he would remember it. It was not a good thing, to meet with Robert C. Byrd's disapproval, when you wanted something; especially after so hypocritically voting against something and then wanting that very thing for your own State. We have an obligation to honor the legacy of this giant of an individual, this giant of a Senator, this giant of a public servant, and that means never losing sight of the millions of Americans out there who don't know whether they will have a home now or have a job, or whether they will be able to afford electricity or food or a roof to sleep under, or a way to take care of their children. But he reminded us on a constant basis what our commitment was. It also means, I think in reflection, that we should be renewing our commitment, as hard as it is--and it is easy to kind of pontificate here--to working together. But let us look at what is happening. Let us look at what has been happening now. I don't think this is an appropriate time to voice lots of criticism, but when we see how difficult it is to move positive things through this institution, it is hard to understand, because the fundamentals that Robert C. Byrd brought to his work were that we were here to serve the public. That was the mission. Rather than standing in the way of permitting things to be considered--things of value--perhaps we ought to have a Byrd lecture to the Senate-at-large every now and then and let someone who knew him or studied him talk about what he brought to the Senate, in addition to extraordinary leadership; someone who could talk about the degree of collegiality that is necessary for us to consider things--serious things--and to get them done. Senator Byrd recently said--and he said this on a regular basis: The world has changed. But our responsibilities, our duties as Senators have not changed. We have a responsibility, a duty to the people to make our country a better place. It would be fitting if in the shadow of his passing that we could take a sledgehammer to partisan gridlock, put the unnecessary rancor aside and start functioning in a deliberative fashion once again. I thank you, Senator Robert C. Byrd, for what you gave to us and gave to this country. All of it will not be recognized in these moments. But as history is reviewed, people will remember--I hope they do--that even when he made a mistake, a serious mistake in his early days--when he was not eager to support desegregation; that he should not have abided with segregationists; that this country belonged to all the people and no one should be discriminated against--that one can be forgiven with good deeds after some bad ones. And he redeemed himself so nobly, so wonderfully. So we say, as we have been for these days, thank you, Robert C Byrd. We loved being with you, and we will miss you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this past weekend, 12 Turkish soldiers were killed by PKK terrorists. Yesterday, another four Turkish soldiers were killed, as well as the innocent daughter of an officer, and according to the Turkish government, the PKK is responsible for this massacre as well. Our condolences go out to these families and all the people of Turkey. Terrorist assaults are unacceptable wherever they occur in the world, and we all have to fight together against them. We are reminded of our common bond with Turkey, and our common fight against terrorists and terror wherever we see it. Turkey has been an important ally, a democracy in a troubled region and a force for stability. We must keep in mind that Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952. They established a strategic and military alliance with Israel in the 1990s, and now have boots on the ground in Afghanistan helping us there. For many years, the bond between the United States and Turkey has been strong and unchallengeable. Despite this progress, Turkey's current prime minister is jeopardizing and risking much of what his country and the Turkish people have accomplished over recent decades. Moving Turkey away from the middle and toward a dangerous extremist path cannot possibly be a good course of action for that country. Prime Minister Erdogan used his vote on the U.N. Security Council to oppose sanctions on Iran. He calls Iranian President Ahmadinejad a friend, while turning away from those in Iran who would promote peace. He has normalized relations with Syria, despite its support for terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact, I was on a visit recently--last year--to Turkey with two other Senators. We joined the prime minister in his conference room. Upon sitting down, he forcefully declared that ``Hamas is not a terrorist organization.'' That is a deeply troubling statement from a member of NATO. Hamas has refused to accept the existence of Israel, a country of more than 7 million people, while declaring threats to destroy the country. It has unleashed more than 10,000 rockets on Israeli neighborhoods and threatens to send thousands more. This group has sent suicide bombers into Israel, who have killed not only Israelis, but Americans also, including people from my State of New Jersey. What puzzles me most of all is how Prime Minister Erdogan refuses to condemn Hamas for a terrorist organization for engaging in the same murderous activity as the PKK. It doesn't add up. It challenges Turkey's standing across the world. The PKK is so dangerous to the Turkish people, their economy, and their national well-being for the very same reasons that Hamas is dangerous to Israel. The prime minister's alignment with the most radical forces in the Middle East is a serious concern for all of us. But the situation is not irreversible. I hope that Prime Minister Erdogan changes course, rejects his drift toward extremism, and embraces the moderate forces within Turkey and across the Middle East. If Turkey wants the standing and respect that a balanced democratic nation earns, it has to treat all peaceful nations the same and terrorists with disdain. I was in Turkey some years ago when the PKK--primarily of Kurdish population--was thought to be a concern, but not particularly active in the terrorism that I saw, anyway, in my visit there. But we saw them then putting people in prison because they differed in opinion with the government. I thought that was a sign of censorship that didn't fit the picture, but they knew that in the Kurdish community, there was a lot of resistance to what the Turkish Government was doing. Now we see that Turkey has 30,000 troops chasing the PKK on the border near Iraq. So it is hard to understand how a nation that has the power that Turkey could have in the Middle East--and in the world generally--is falling prey to identifying one group as friendly and another group--or one group as terrorists in one place and a good- meaning organization in another. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and everybody knows it. They have overtaken the Gaza, and they control all the flow of everything there--arms, et cetera--and maintain an arsenal with which to attack Israel. We have to let Turkey know this is not a good way for us to continue an alliance. We have an interest in balance and respect for the countries in the Middle East. So I hope we can continue a long-time, close relationship with this great country and long-time friend. I close with a wish that in Turkey they will take a second look at the policies they are currently condoning and join with us in the fight against terrorism. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and commend her for the struggle we have had with this issue when, in fact, there should not be any struggle. This is not an issue, in my view, that ought to be debated. To reduce the protection we want to offer our families to me sounds silly, and I believe to the American public it is going to sound silly as well. I do not ascribe any evil intent on the part of the Senator from Alaska, but I think it is absolutely mistaken. The question before us today is simply, Whose side are you on? Do you want to afford your children and your grandchildren the most protection they can have against foul air, against contamination, against pollution generally, or are you worried about the oil companies? We should not have to worry about them. As a matter of fact, they ought to worry a little more about us--a heck of a lot more about us. Taking nothing away from the experience and the knowledge the Senator from Alaska brings, I was in Alaska the second day after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I saw the casual attitude that prevailed with Exxon. It told me something about the thinking of these companies. There it was, the ship was foundering. We had people already up there. There were heroic efforts by people from Fish and Wildlife, by people from the Park Service, Interior, up there caressing little seals, trying to get the oil off them so they could survive, eagles and all kinds of animals. What happened there--and I use this as an example--what happened there is that Exxon was assessed a penalty. They paid the compensatory damages, but they were assigned a penalty for their behavior. They were fined $5 billion. Instead of paying at that time when they made $3 billion--equivalent to $6 billion in today's currency--when they spent all their time in court on lawyers, the $5 billion that was owed to the American people was cut down to $500 million. That is the attitude. We see it with BP--all kinds of disguises, all kinds of fabrications, all kinds of lies, wanting to talk about: This is not such a bad thing; we will take care of it. First they offered to take care of it. Then they said they will pay the claims and then legitimate claims. Always modifying. The question is, Whose side are we on? The side of big oil, the people who are right now responsible for much of the destruction in the Gulf of Mexico or are you on the side of your own children, your own grandchildren? I have experienced it, as most families have, with a child who has asthma and another one who has diabetes. We are not sure of the source of these conditions, but if my colleagues vote for this resolution they are voting to allow a clear and present danger to the health of their own families. How can they do that? The American Academy of Pediatrics, 60,000 members, all of them well trained in science and medicine, has been clear in the warning that climate change will have the most dramatic effect on children. What is our responsibility? To me, the responsibility is to take care of our kids however we can do it, protect them from all kinds of dangers. Here is one that will just increase it if we permit this resolution to go through. Think about your grandchildren coughing and gagging on foul air in the future. I see it in my own family. My oldest grandchild is 16. He has asthma. When the atmosphere is bad, he is in terrible shape. When my daughter takes him--he is a good athlete--to play baseball or otherwise, the first thing she checks is where is the nearest clinic so if he starts to wheeze, she can get there in a hurry. We have seen a troubling increase of asthma. The rate of asthma in children has doubled, and we know carbon pollution causes increased asthma attacks. More global warming means increases in malaria and food and water shortages that will devastate children around the globe. Global warming is upon us. We have to solve the problem and with that the pollution of the air. Put simply, this resolution is an attack--unintentionally I am sure-- on children's health but that is going to be the result. That is why the groups that support children and health are opposed to Senator Murkowski's resolution. The resolution puts politics--politics--ahead of science. The science is clear: Emissions from burning coal and oil are sickening children all around the world, and if we can help them--I don't care what country they are in--we should help them. But we want to take care of those in our country. The resolution asks Senators to say to the scientists: You are wrong, scientists. I say leave the science to the scientists and not to the politicians. At the same time, big oil and their lobbyists will stop at nothing to keep our country's dependence on oil, to have us victimized by people who are not our friends, taking our money and at the same time fouling our air. For too long, they have had our country by the barrel and by the throat. This resolution is a gift to BP. I don't think BP deserves any contributions from the U.S. Congress or from the American taxpayers right now. This resolution is a direct attack on the Clean Air Act. For the last 40 years, the Clean Air Act has led to cleaner skies and healthier children. When we strengthened the Clean Air Act, big oil rang an alarm that the changes would cost too much and shut down businesses and put Americans out of work. The actual costs were less than one-fifth of the estimates that were projected. I ask my colleagues to vote for their family, vote for science, which means to vote against the Murkowski resolution. We have to meet our obligations to future generations, and we have to get serious and solve our Nation's problems and move toward a clean energy future and not more carbon pollution and oil. I urge my colleagues to please vote for their children, vote for their families, vote no on this resolution and keep the future clean for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Don't worry about the oil companies. They will take care of themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Charles A. ``Chuck'' Hurley upon his retirement as chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Chuck is a true safety advocate, and his longstanding commitment to that cause is more than worthy of recognition. Throughout my time in the Senate, Chuck and I have worked together on numerous highway safety initiatives, including the national age 21 drinking law, the national .08 BAC standard, primary seat belt laws, and teen driver graduated licensing programs. Chuck was instrumental in creating the ``Click it or Ticket'' Campaign in North Carolina, establishing the Nation's first pilot program to ensure drivers and passengers were buckling up. He also helped to launch the National SAFE KIDS Campaign, the national nonprofit organization dedicated solely to the prevention of unintentional childhood injury. A longtime supporter of MADD, Chuck has been involved in the organization since the very beginning. He attended MADD's first national press conference in Washington, DC, in 1980, and strongly supported the passage of my National 21 Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984. From 1993 to 1998, Chuck served on the MADD National Board of Directors and was later named to the MADD National Board of Advisors. In 2005, Chuck became MADD CEO. Since then, he has developed MADD's Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which successfully encourages States to require drunk drivers to use an ignition interlock device. He has also been an outspoken advocate for the development of advanced alcohol detection technology, which could someday completely eliminate drunk driving. Chuck graduated with a bachelor of arts in political science from Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. From 1968 to 1970, he served in the U.S. Navy as an intelligence officer in Taipei, Taiwan. Chuck then worked for Congressman Bill Steiger, where he helped create the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In the early 1980s, Chuck helped found the Lifesavers Conference, which is dedicated to reducing the tragic toll of deaths and injuries on our Nation's roadways. Chuck also served as the vice president of the Transportation Safety Group for the National Safety Council and as the executive director of the Council's Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign. In addition, Chuck served as a senior official at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Chuck has dedicated his career to making our highways safer for drivers and passengers. On behalf of everyone who uses our Nation's roadways, I am honored to express my gratitude and congratulations to Charles A. ``Chuck'' Hurley and extend my best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey. When we hear the objection, as we have heard it, we have now three times offered legislation to lift the $75 million liability cap for oil companies, and I have to shake my head as I hear what is being said. The land that is drilled on is Federal land. It is land that everybody owns. It is our land. It is not their land. If you come into my yard and destroy my house, you pay for it because it is not the person who did the damage who owns it. It is shocking when I hear things such as ``arbitrary test''-- arbitrary. Whatever damage is caused ought to be paid for, very simply. So we on this side, our side of the aisle, are united that we need to do away with this cap. The liability is extensive. It ought to be paid for, especially by people who can afford to pay. When you think about it, these companies have to be reminded they are not selling lawnmowers; they are extracting oil from our property. They are making billions and billions of dollars on it, almost shamefully. I look at it and I remember that one time there was an excess profits tax in America. It was during World War II. It said companies that profited as a result of the war, as a result of the crisis, had to pay an extra tax on the profits they made. That is what we ought to be doing now. These profits they make and the damage they create are an unconscionable twosome. So those on the other side object each time we try to do something that enables our country, the people, to recover the damage that was put upon them by either careless or reckless behavior by three companies united: BP, Transocean, Halliburton. So there is no doubt about it. Shamelessly, they want to stick with big oil while people across the country suffer from either damage or costs that are moved over to them. Evidence continues to mount that big oil cannot be trusted. BP's CEO said this spill is not very serious, a very tiny amount, and the environmental impact would be very modest. He said it publicly. Well, they want to downplay the damage, but they cannot hold it. They cannot make the public believe, they cannot make those who are responsible for the measurement believe it. They do not want to pay the full cost even though they are responsible for the full damage. Transocean--it is amazing--tried to go to court citing an 1851 maritime law to limit their liability. At the same time, we face billions in monetary damages, far more than the Exxon Valdez spill, and damage to industry is growing as tourism suffers. Twenty-two percent of gulf fisheries have been closed. Those responsible for messing it up must be responsible fully for cleaning up--just like families do, just like neighborhoods do, just like communities do. With billions and billions of profits, we know big oil can afford to bail itself out, and they ought to pay for it, period. So we are standing here once again asking our Republican colleagues a simple question: Whose side are you on? I think it is pretty evident. They are on the side of big oil while we stand up for ordinary Americans trying to eke out a living in these very difficult times. I hope there will be a reconsideration, and they will agree those who do the damage ought to pay for the damage they created.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I ask my colleague from New Jersey, was the floor relinquished?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be permitted to call up amendment No. 4175.